What would your candidate do to make the executive office 'right' with the Constitution?
2008-05-31T15:41:55Z
"No executive in the history of the Anglo-American world since the Civil War in England in the 17th century has laid claim to such broad power," said David Adler, a prolific author of articles on the U.S. Constitution. "George Bush has exceeded the claims of Oliver Cromwell who anointed himself Lord Protector of England."
What do you think?
2008-05-31T16:32:19Z
Mo, that is simply not true. The document isn't long, and was designed to limit the government, and make Congress, elected by the people, in control over the executive office, but with a balance of powers in 3 branches to check and balance each other. Not to have Congress delegate its power unconsitutionally to the executive branch.
2008-05-31T16:34:07Z
Chuck, I'd planned to vote for GOP in the other elections, but resigning from the party is sounding better all the time.
2008-05-31T16:35:00Z
slew, oh, I completely agree he didn't start it. It just accelerated and accumulated at an alarming rate during his tenure.
Anonymous2008-05-31T15:49:50Z
Favorite Answer
Yes, but he is supposed to have that authority, that is the way the US constitution works, and it has worked OK for a long time.
George III was of course, limited in his statements and actions by the constitutional arrangements put in place after the English Civil War, and after the 'Glorious Revolution' of 1688. What is more disturbing is how recent Prime Ministers seem to be ignoring the bill of rights established after 1688, which are there by an act of parliament which has never been (and must never be) repealed. ----- DAR - you are right, of course. The President is entitled to have an active political role though, which the monarch is not. (He or she is not even entitled to vote.)
These last 3 administrations have been like watching a movie when it gets to the part you "just can't watch.".
I half agree with the post that the Constitution has worked for a long time but it only worked until our leaders became confident that they're ideas were just a little better. Exactly what the Framers understood was impossible. And precisely the reason for its existence.
...
edit:
Chuck, I'd prefer to remain a Reagan-Republican even if the group that calls itself "republicans" is anything but. Unfortunately, only state-level Republicans seem loyal to the ideals of Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Reagan and, yes, Jefferson who openly claimed to be a Republican even before the party was officially founded.
I think, it gives Bush too much credit. Our freedoms aren't taken away by leeps and bounds, but by steps. SOme democrats complained to me about how Bush was a dictator because he wanted to end Filabusters. I agree it was bad, but I commented that Clinton started line item Veto. We can't give away rights, because at the time, it's convenient. I was horrified, that Democrats had an attitude, that CLinton should be above the law, after the Monica Lewinsky scandal. This country seems to be in the decline since the 80's.
I think FDR really had more power..as he put the Japanese in prison...these Japanese were found out to be all loyal to the US..during a real war the power of the President is about the same as Marshall law...